We all know your idea is crazy.

We all know your idea is crazy. The question is whether it is cray enough to have a chance of being correct / Niels Bohr /# What is the temperature of Hawking radiation ? The temperature of the background radiation - energy left over from the Big Bang - is about 2.7 kelvin, but the temperature of Hawking radiation is only 1.2 nanokelvin#My opinion Book: ''' Stephan Hawking, A life in science''''Together with Brandon Carter and Jim Bardeen, Hawking wrote a paper, published in Communications in Mathematical Physics , pointing out . . . . . the team commented, '' In fact the effective temperature of a black hole is absolute zero . . . . No radiation could be emitted from the hole.'' / by Michael White and John Gribbin, page 156./But later (!) , . . using concept of entropy and Heisenberg uncertainty principle and quantum fluctuations Hawking changed his mind and wrote that black hole can emit ( Hawking radiation )#So, in the beginning (according to calculations) the ''black hole'' had absolute zero temperature T=0K, but . . . . . . but thanks to quantum fluctuations Hawking radiations was arisen In others words:''black holes'' are local micro- scheme of absolute zero vacuum: T=0KSo called a ''black hole'' is only another name of the true vacuum: T=0K#Many say:''Hawking radiation has never been experimentally verified.''In my opinion: Hawking radiation (as appearances of virtual particles from the event horizon of black hole / zero vacuum ) was experimentally observed in many physical effects:a)Scientists create light from vacuumNovember 17, 2011,https://phys.org/news/2011-11-scientists-vacuum.htmlb) “ Its effects can be observed in various phenomena (such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect, thevan der Waals bonds, or the Lamb shift), and it is thoughtto have consequences for the behavior of the Universe on cosmological scales. “/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy /.==================

Re: We all know your idea is crazy.

We all know your idea is false because in the beginning was a ''singular point''.#We all know that ''a singular point'' doesn't have framework.#We all know that thanks to '' a singular point'' different particles were created (virtual particles too)#We all know that these ''virtual particles - antiparticles'' also take some part in the universe.#We all think your idea is crazy because an idea thatin the beginning was zero vacuum: T=0Kcontradict our comprehension of physics.======

Re: We all know your idea is crazy.

Questioning Truth, Reality and the Role of ScienceMay 24, 2018==Many scientists in the early 20th century were deeply engaged with philosophy, including Einstein, Bohr, Mach and Born. Have we lost that engagement?Yes, I think what we have lost is a distinctive way of thinking about science. We have lost the idea, dating back to the Renaissance and the scientific revolution, that science is part of our broader cultural history. / Michela Massimi /https://www.quantamagazine.org/question ... -20180524/

Re: We all know your idea is crazy.

Why some scientists say physics has gone off the railsHas the love of "elegant" equations overtaken the desire to describe the real world?by Dan Falk / Jun.02.2018 / 5:13 PM ET=== "People can believe in the multiverse all they want — but it's not science."# "Theoretical physicists used to explain what was observed. Now they try to explain why they can't explain what was not observed. And they're not even good at that." / Sabine Hossenfelder, /https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/wh ... ncna879346

Re: We all know your idea is crazy.

Innovation: abstraction and reality: plogiston and Ideal gas.===Quote by Albert Einstein about the value of Innovation: “We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them.”#There are two ways of innovation.a) to solve a problem with one absolutely new idea( like Planck's quantum of action)b) to solve a problem looking it from another point of view( like was solved problem that '' heat is not a phlogiston substance, but a dynamical form of mechanical effect'' that slowly evolved into the new science of ''thermodynamics'')#The ''phlogiston theory'' was accepted for more than 100 years.Today, in my opinion, there is another kind of ''phlogiston theory''.We know this a new kind of ''phlogiston theory''.from about 1800by the very old name ''the theory of ideal gas.More than 300 years we accept ''an ideal gas'' as an abstract theory.# What is an ideal gas ?a) Ideal gas has the temperature T=0K ( −273.15 °C) b). Ideal gas molecules do not attract or repel each other. c) Ideal gas molecules themselves take up no volume. #We usually remember the first things we learn.The second thing it seems not so important andthe brain refuses to pay attention on this subject.For example.At first in the school we were taught that ''ideal gas''(with temperature T=0K) is an abstract model,Later we were taught that vacuum is not ''empty, dead place '' because some kinds of ''quantum virtual particles'' exist there .As result, the brain refuses to tie ''an abstract ideal gas'' with vacuum.For me it sound strange.If the vacuum was accepted as a some real substance(book : '‘Dreams of a final theory'’'‘ It is true . . . there is such a thing as absolute zero'' by Steven Weinberg. Page 138.) then why the ''ideal gas'' is still an abstract model?#The thermodynamics was created from ''an ideal gas''In ideal gas molecules / particles don't interact each other.But thermodynamics / heat is result of interaction between particles.Then i can suggest - small quantum's changes allow ideal particlescreate thermodynamic effect.#In my opinion ''ideal gas'' is not an abstract model.It is possible to apply all laws of ''ideal gas'' to zero vacuumbecause they both have equal temperature: T=0K and thenthe potential characteristic of vacuum's ''virtual particles''will be clearly known.Later using Quantum theory and Lorentz / Einstein SRTit is possible to understand how the potential characteristic of ''virtual particles'' change / transform into Planck's dynamic quantum particles of action.#The changes / transformations between potential and activestates of quantum particles are going according to'' The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass''.This law dictates that quantum particles off energy/mass cannot die, they can only change / transform their faces / images.===========

Re: We all know your idea is crazy.

Perpetual motion and Quantum physics=To be true ''Perpetual motion'' must obey some physical lawThe Classic / Newtonian physics forbids such phenomenaBut what does Quantum physics say?The Quantum physics says:[ In 2017 new states of matter, time crystals, were discovered in which on a microscopic scale the component atoms are in continual repetitive motion, thus satisfying the literal definition of "perpetual motion".However, these do not constitute perpetual motion machines in the traditional sense or violate thermodynamic laws because they are in their quantum ground state, so no energy can be extracted from them; they have "motion without energy"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

It means that on a microscopic scale ( in their quantum ground state) the Quantum physics can allow "perpetual motion" as a "motion without energy" . . . but . . . then the ''zero-point energy'' comes

[ Vacuum energy and zero-point energy: In order to explain effects such as virtual particles and the Casimir effect, many formulations of quantum physics include a background energy which pervades empty space, known as vacuum or zero-point energy. The ability to harness zero-point energy for useful work is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community at large. Inventors have proposed various methods for extracting useful work from zero-point energy, but none have been found to be viable, no claims for extraction of zero-point energy have ever been validated by the scientific community, and there is no evidence that zero-point energy can be used in violation of conservation of energy.]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion# If the ''Perpetual motion'' is true concept then the virtual particles must be tied with real particles (Casimir effect ) by ''The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass''# ''Perpetual motion'' concept is tied with ''The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass''==

Re: We all know your idea is crazy.

The Philosopher's Stone and Quantum particles.===a) First question:What is the Philosopher's Stone?The Philosopher's Stone is a Primary Matter.All physical elements was derived from one common source -- primary matter (first matter in the universe)Philosopher's Stone consist of quantum particles.

b) Second question: Where is the Philosopher's Stone?Before to talk about Philosopher's Stone we must to thinkabout the reference frame of this ''stone''because the Philosopher's Stone must exist somewhere. #Different conditions of reference frame can change the images of stone.If the Philosopher's Stone is in a desert then It is covered with sang.If the Philosopher's Stone is in tundra then It is covered with lichen. If the Philosopher's Stone is at a bottom of sea then It is covered with corals. If the Philosopher's Stone is in a zero vacuum then It isn't a bare stone butthe Philosopher's Stone - particle in T=0K is covered with:1) the theory of ideal gas,2) quantum theory ,3) Lorentz / Einstein's SRT.

c) Third question: Does the Philosopher's Stone hidden in a zero vacuum?Yeah, because all stars, planets . . . all micro and macro material objects are hung in the void of zero vacuum. Then:1) according to the theory of ideal gas the Philosopher's -particlemust have geometrical form of circle pi=c/d= 3,1415 . . . . 2) according to the theory of ideal gas the Philosopher's -particlemust have Boltzmann mass k=R/N(Avogadro) 3) according to quantum theory quantum particles must haveenergy-mass: +/- E=Mc^24) according to quantum theory quantum particles must haveown Goudsmit / Uhlenbeck inner angular impulse h * = h /2pi. 5) according to SRT quantum particles can obey Lorentz transformations.============

Re: We all know your idea is crazy.

The theory must be “crazy enough to be true,” === There Are No Laws of Physics. There’s Only the Landscape.Scientists seek a single description of reality. But modern physics allows for many different descriptions, many equivalent to one another, connected through a vast landscape of mathematical possibility. / by Robbert Dijkgraaf / But we have to be honest. Very few current ideas about what replaces particles and fields are “crazy enough to be true,” to quote Niels Bohr.https://www.quantamagazine.org/there-ar ... /#comments=======

Re: We all know your idea is crazy.

There is a strange situation:everybody knows that vacuum is not an empty continuum,but when it comes to give the physical parameters of vacuum,then one educated man is as dumb as the next learned guy,who is as dumb as the learned man next to him. Why?Because from the school we were told that ''ideal gas''(with temperature T=0K) is an abstract model anduntil today we live with such '''scientific knowledge''.As it says: ''Old habits die hard''====

Re: We all know your idea is crazy.

Beauty Is Truth, Truth Is Beauty, and Other Lies of Physics/ by Sabine Hossenfelder , 15/JUL/2018 / Who doesn’t like a pretty idea? Physicists certainly do. In the foundations of physics, it has become accepted practice to prefer hypotheses that are aesthetically pleasing. Physicists believe that their motivations don’t matter because hypotheses, after all, must be tested. But most of their beautiful ideas are hard or impossible to test. And whenever an experiment comes back empty-handed, physicists can amend their theories to accommodate the null results.https://thewire.in/the-sciences/beauty- ... of-physics===

Re: We all know your idea is crazy.

socrat44 » July 16th, 2018, 2:56 am wrote:Beauty Is Truth, Truth Is Beauty, and Other Lies of Physics/ by Sabine Hossenfelder , 15/JUL/2018 / Who doesn’t like a pretty idea? Physicists certainly do. In the foundations of physics, it has become accepted practice to prefer hypotheses that are aesthetically pleasing. Physicists believe that their motivations don’t matter because hypotheses, after all, must be tested. But most of their beautiful ideas are hard or impossible to test. And whenever an experiment comes back empty-handed, physicists can amend their theories to accommodate the null results.https://thewire.in/the-sciences/beauty- ... of-physics===

"beauty makes all beautiful things beautiful "by beauty all things are beautifulby largeness things are longer than anotherby shortness things are shorter than another ===